Maurice Merleau-Ponty argued that the seeing of things together (focal figure and background objects) accounted for the sense that things possess unseen depth: they are three-dimensional entities, not facades. I compare this idea to the law of large numbers. In both cases, single entities take on substance, depth, or meaning when assimilated into a large body of comparable instances. Thinking along these lines, Erwin Schrödinger proposed that living processes achieve order by virtue of the multiplicity of their constituent parts, any (...) of which, when considered individually, militate against perception and understanding. He further suggested that those parts take their place as things to be perceived even as they constitute our perceiving faculties, and this is why uncertainty occasions their reality. Thus he offers an instance of Merleau-Ponty’s notion of chiasmic intertwining, which allows for world-body interchange or reversibility beyond the reach of unequivocal apprehension. (shrink)

Light is puzzling in modern physics–witness wave-particle duality, the two-slit experiment, and the invariant speed of light. These puzzles are not intrinsic to light but arise from overly narrow views of light. Disregarding the expansive, unitary nature of light that informs everyday experience, modern physics treats light as if it were self-bounded and separable. Further, physics assumes that light is not complicit with observations of light, that the two are separable. By likening light to light-illuminated entities, these attitudes set the (...) stage for puzzles. When,however, conceptions of light are aligned with visual experience, those puzzles become occasions of understanding.This is because visual experience already embodies that aspect of light which physics finds so anomalous: nonseparability. Light's interactive vastness shows up wherever light shows up, and because no observer can back away from light or step outside its integrative embrace, different parts of light cannot be lifted out ofthe observation as distinct – i.e., distinctly-observed – entities. (shrink)

Nonlocality is a puzzling issue in modern physics. I propose that, aside from the experimental determination of nonlocality, the concept of atomistic lightmdash;discrete, self-bounded photonsmdash;breaks down toward something like nonlocality when subjected to philosophical scrutiny. Louis de Broglie made a similar argument regarding the material atom: the concept of the classical atom, when interrogated, collapses upon itself to offer a glimpse of wave-particle duality. Light atoms or photons, I argue, similarly collapse toward the contradictory possibility of nonlocality.

Most people have heard about quantum physics and its remarkable, well-nigh bizarre claims. And most people would assume that quantum reality describes a world quite different from ours. In this book, David A. Grandy shows that one can find quantum puzzles, or variations thereof, in the backyard of everyday experience. What disappears in transferring quantum theory to the everyday is the theory's mathematical formalism, but that need not imply a loss of analytic rigor. If quantum reality is truly as elemental (...) and ubiquitous as many thinkers suggest, then alternative or complementary perspectives ought to be possible, and with the proliferation of such perspectives, a more fully rounded understanding of quantum reality—and everyday reality—might emerge. Everyday Quantum Reality is a step in that direction. (shrink)

Parts of the natural sciences have been deepened to the point where evidence can be brought to bear in a controlled way on problems classified as metaphysical. According to Elizabeth Napper, śūnyatā inheres in “the utter unfindability of objects” owing to their intrinsic emptiness: “If things existed in the palpable, independent way we imagine them to, they would have to be such that they could be found when sought—but they cannot.” She further notes that when objects are subjected to meditative (...) analysis “they disappear altogether,” and “one is left with the absence of what was sought, with a mere vacuity that is emptiness.”2 This definition of śūnyatā originates with Nāgārjuna, who insisted that.. (shrink)

Special relativity insists that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant for all inertial observers. This is often said to be counterintuitive: why should light alone, among all things in the world, return the same speed value to all inertial observers, regardless of their different states of motion? I argue that this question or puzzle arises because physics misconstrues light by characterizing it as a freestanding phenomenon. As James Gibson insisted, and as any analysis of the visual experience (...) makes plain, light, the agency of sight, cannot be overtaken by sight. A better characterization of light is Gibson's optic array, which prompts the realization that our prior complicity with light keeps us from getting leverage on it as a freestanding phenomenon, and this is why it returns the same speed value to all observers. To show the limitation of freestanding light, I offer two derivations of relativistic time dilation. The first imagines freestanding light and then, to complete the derivation, artificially requires light speed constancy; the second achieves the same result in a fully natural way?that is, without putting observers in an abstract, arguably impossible, situation?by merely attending to the seeing experience. (shrink)

Thiis essay explores Johann Wolfgang von Goethe*s reaction to Newtonian science and its quantification of nature. In particular, Goethe insisted that Newton's mechanistic portrayal of light and color was but a partial account of their reality. Broadening the understandings upon which science is practiced, Goethe developed ideas that presuppose mind-world intimacy and the consequent need to acknowledge the limited utility of mathematical modeling and theory construction. Such an approach values human subjectivity and sees it as partly constitutive of nature. While (...) Goethe's treatment of color and light is not religious in a traditional sense, it resonates overtones consonant with religious belief. Rejecting the materialistic emphasis of Newtonian physics, Goethe felt that science may expand our spiritual horizons by helping us see the many ways we are patterned into the phenomenological splendor of the world This outlook aligns with Goethe's belief-illustrated in Faust-that the soul holds out for something more than a materialistic metaphysics. (shrink)

In Einstein's theory of relativity, the speed of light is deemed an absolute value because it is indifferent to the motion of material bodies. Nothing we do can "take a bite" out of its measured velocity of 186,000 miles per second: it is an irreducible quantity. Similarly, our minds cannot race ahead quickly enough to reduce or convert light to everyday understandings. Indeed, modem physics portrays light as having an infinite aspect. Leading to talk of the spaceless, timeless character of (...) light, this aspect permits the suggestion that light resonates spiritual possibilities, and this resonance supports the traditional religious view that light is a symbol or expression of divinity. It also provides a basis for affirming absolutes in ethical life. The relativist stance is thus countered on two fronts—scientific and sacred—with light shining through the veil or barrier that has historically divided the two. (shrink)

Maurice Merleau-Ponty argued that the seeing of things together (focal figure and background objects) accounted for the sense that things possess unseen depth: they are three-dimensional entities, not facades. I compare this idea to the law of large numbers. In both cases, single entities take on substance, depth, or meaning when assimilated into a large body of comparable instances. Thinking along these lines, Erwin Schrödinger proposed that living processes achieve order by virtue of the multiplicity of their constituent parts, any (...) of which, when considered individually, militate against perception and understanding. He further suggested that those parts take their place as things to be perceived even as they constitute our perceiving faculties, and this is why uncertainty occasions their reality. Thus he offers an instance of Merleau-Ponty’s notion of chiasmic intertwining, which allows for world-body interchange or reversibility beyond the reach of unequivocal apprehension. (shrink)

I argue that intrinsic quantum uncertainty informs the elemental life experiences of random play and compassionate sorrow. These experiences, like Niels Bohr’s quantum ontology, point toward unscripted novelty, fresh variation, and far-flung sympathetic interconnections. And in doing this, they allow the inner and outer feeling experiences to grow back together. As we feel the world sensibly—that is, touch it with our sense organs—it touches back in a way that engenders feeling-laden or sympathetic understanding.

span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: quot;Times New Romanquot;"I argue that intrinsic quantum uncertainty informs the elemental life experiences of random play and compassionate sorrow. These experiences, like Niels Bohrrsquo;s quantum ontology, point toward unscripted novelty, fresh variation, and far-flung sympathetic interconnections. And in doing this, they allow the inner and outer feeling experiences to grow back together. As we feel the world sensiblymdash;that is, touch it with our sense organsmdash;it touches back in a way that engenders feeling-laden or sympathetic understanding. /span.

We often suppose that science forces our hand when it comes to theological options. Thus, in the twentieth century, some argued that Darwinian biology rules out the possibility of a loving, caring God, and that quantum mechanics, by disclosing the intrinsic chanciness of nature, problematizes the traditional Christian belief of God’s providential involvement in our lives. Yet science underdetermines religious belief--the so-called scientific evidence is insufficient to rule out belief in divine providence. If we choose not to believe in such, (...) we choose freely, not because science constrains us. If anything, the choice not to believe precedes scientific judgment, not the other way around. To illustrate this thesis, one may compare the religious world-views of Charles Darwin and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. The striking difference between the two is not the result of scientific discovery, but rather a shift in Western culture regarding the propriety of letting God figure into scientific explanations of nature. (shrink)

I argue that sunyata, or something like it, manifested itself in early Western thought. While Plato and Aristotle resisted emptiness or nothingness, they nevertheless felt themselves obliged to venture close to its edge in order to ground their explanations of changing reality to unchanging principles. These principles embody much of the indeterminancy long associated with the Mahayana understanding of sunyata. Although their function was to enable lasting explanations of reality by putting change out of play, they themselves shade off toward (...) a featureless being evocative of non-being. Moving along a somewhat different track, Greek atomists embraced emptiness so as to permit self-existent, fully self-contained atoms to move about. In their system, non-being, a foundational principle of reality, paradoxically coexists with being. Interestingly, modern science has undone the self-containment of atoms—emptied them of properties once thought to be innate—and thereby removed yet another Western safeguard against change. It seems that change cannot be put out of play, though it does slope off toward sunyata-like emptiness. (shrink)

Alfred North Whtiehead stated that mathematics and music compete with each other for the honor of being the most novel achievement of the human imagination. Actually, there is no rivalry or competition, for the two enterprises interpenetrate once the investigation is pursued far enough. Though on opposite ends of the science-humanities spectrum, each discipline points toward the other and elicits the same sort of reverential puzzlement. This essay considers the seminal interconnection between music and mathematics and concludes that this unexpected (...) conjunction of opposites bespeaks a higher, unseen reality. Music cum mathematics is an optics that allows us to discover, celebrate, and participate in God's ongoing Creation. (shrink)